[Closed] Illegal downloads

If it's not a legitimate free download then it's theft, pure and simple.
If a mate buys a DVD, watches it, then lends it to me, is that theft?

If I read a book, then give it to my girlfriend to read, is that theft?

If I download a movie that I otherwise wouldn't have bought / rented otherwise, is that theft?

If I download a movie and never watch it, is that theft?

If a mate copies a DVD for me, I watch it, then throw it away, is that theft?

in all those instances yes, though they do varying, and largely minimal, degrees of harm to the copyright holder, and the effort to enforce would outweigh the benefit

When you buy a dvd you actually buy a license to view it privately, the license doesn't permit you to lend, copy or resell.

If I get a film from LoveFilm, is that theft?

If I take a photo of the Mona Lisa, blow it up to A4 and stick it on my wall, is that theft?

Copyright is about right of reproduction, its not just about income from the product its about controlling how many copies there are. It financial and artistic value can be tied to how ubiquitous or scarce a work is.

should I have any qualms about downloading an album that is very hard to buy/well overpriced and of no financial gain to the original artist?

What about their widow or their children - the copyright and the revenue it creates will be part of that artist's inheritance

I've coached a couple of those over the years.

So you know that the following isn't true, don't you?

Because the sentence was difficult to read.

Or, as you gave me the incorrect solution, I have to have doubts that you have coached a couple of those or if you have it certainly wasn't in grammar, I hope. 🙄

You were looking for a way to try and make me look less credible and failed.

YAY! The tags have started again..... Another happy attention whore, thanks. 😉

I'm not rising to your bait.

You were looking for a way to try and make me look less credible and failed.

I really, truly, honestly wasn't.

Mac,

I don't disagree with anything you've posted but, that wasn't what I was getting at, and not what I asked.

I know it's copyright infringement. But I asked, "is it theft?" Is it?

Actually, at the risk of tangenting, I take a bit of that back.

Legally, you're not allowed to lend books to friends? Is that right?

Lovefilm will have purchased a DVD with a license that allows them to hire it out, and that license will have cost them significantly more than a retail version of the film.

Hypothetically,

Say I have a LoveFilm subscription. If I get a film sent to me by LoveFilm, or download it off the Internet, morally what's the difference? The net difference to the film company is zero, the net difference to me is zero. LoveFilm win out, it's once less disc they have to send me.

Of course it makes a net difference to the film company, I've leave it you to you to speculate why.

Oh, don't do that, spell it out.

Go on, give it a wee try. Imagine two sorts of films you could hire from Lovefilm - something like Avatar and something like Leningrad Cowboys Go America. You pay the same subscription whether hire either or both or neither. But whats the difference?

To the film company? Do they get more money from more rentals, or do they get a set fee irrespective?

Thats right - Lovefilm's royalty payments to copyright holders based on the disks they actually hire out, if there is more demand for one film than another then the royalty payments or the number of licenses bought will obviously reflect that. The sum total of all their subscriptions is not just divided equally amongst all the titles on the list.

So going back to your hypothesis - if you take a Lovefilm subscription and hire hundreds and hundreds of films thats great news for those film makers and bad news for lovefilm. If you pay and hire no films thats great for lovefilm and rubbish for the filmakers. If you take a subscription and hire no films and download them instead thats the same net effect.

But that would be a daft thing to do (unless this is less than hypothetical).

Now then another hypothetical - If you'd paid to watch film at the cinema, and bought the DVD, and hired it anyway, and watched it on pay per view, and on terestrial TV....... whats the moral position if you also download it?

Legally, you're not allowed to lend books to friends? Is that right?

No that's wrong.
Of course you're not allowed to make them a photocopy of your book.

Lovefilm's royalty payments to copyright holders based on the disks they actually hire out

... which is entirely different to what you said in the first place then,

Lovefilm will have purchased a DVD with a license that allows them to hire it out,

... which is it?

If you'd paid to watch film at the cinema, and bought the DVD, and hired it anyway, and watched it on pay per view, and on terestrial TV....... whats the moral position if you also download it?

Morally that's easy. Far as I'm concerned, and call me old fashioned, buying something means you own it. If I'd bought the DVD then I'd have no moral issues with downloading it (though I'm not sure why I'd want to, unless I'd broke the original disc or something).

Legally, I'd probably be buggered. But, y'know.

Sorry my first point was about hiring DVDs generally, Lovefilms business model is obviously a little different to your local blockbuster, but the disk you get through the post will still be licensed differently to a retail copy and the income to film companies will still be linked to which disks people are actually hiring.

The moral issue with downloading a pirate copy of a film even if you own a copy, is the owners of the film don't want you to download a copy. Its their right to control the distribution of their work.

And with that my battery is running out and so am I

The stealing DVDs and bikes and cars and handbags analogies that the film companies and the STW collective have put forward are bunk.

A much more comprehensible analogy is this: train tickets. Downloading music and films (that you otherwise would have bought - a grey area and a half that argument...) illegally is EXACTLY like travelling without a ticket on a train: the train is going where it's gonna go anyway and it won't cost the operator any more to run it if you're on the train (the artist made the film/song/book anyway and it won't cost them any more to make if you download a copy). Buying your ticket or paying for the work offsets some of the cost of producing that service thus making it more likely that that train will run in future (recieve subsidies, whatever) or that the artist will continue to release tunes and flicks.

¿Comprende, amigos? 😉

For the record, since it seems fashionable to state our stances, I started downloading illegally in 2000 when Napster was king (ah, the nostalgia that wells up when recalling dial-up piracy...) then lost interest until Kazaa was usable a few years later and finally got out of it when that started to wane. I was reintroduced to it a few months ago by a colleague who waxed on about Bittorrent's greatness and seemingly effortlessly sorted me out with a few films. I tried it and was hooked. Since then I've filled a 500gb hardrive and am on to the next one.

Boring personal history aside, why do I do it? One word: laziness. It is infinitely more convenient to google "blah blah blah torrent", click a Pirate Bay link and have a film in ten minutes than it is to obtain it by ANY other means. I claim no moral right or delude myself into believing that I'm some sort of pioneer anarchist. I'm just a lazy bum who hasn't bought an album or DVD or been to the moving picture house for years. I've no excuses, I know it's illegal.

I do, however, always buy a train ticket since the introduction of almost universal automatic ticket barriers. Perhaps the analogy could continue side-by-side. Discuss...

Good work dandelion - well put!

I do, however, always buy a train ticket since the introduction of almost universal automatic ticket barriers. Perhaps the analogy could continue side-by-side. Discuss...

And with that my battery is running out and so am I

i lied a bit

As someone who writes their own music, if my stuff was pirated/shared online I think I'd just be happy that people liked it enough to risk downloading it illegally (not that there really is much risk for most). For some artists music may be all about money but don't think it's the be-all-end-all for many.

I used to download a lot but have started buying a lot of the stuff I got since I can afford it now.

Software wise, I downloaded a lot as it made my uni work a lot easier (all the uni computers had the software but run so shit that it's not worth the hassle). My terrible justification is that photoshop etc are so expensive that I couldn't afford them anyway, so I may as well be familiarising myself with them until such time as I get into a job (or any paid work) in which I will be using a "proper" version.

Some more pondering has realised an even wider analogy: taxes. You can use hospitals and roads and libraries and forests (take the bait, take the bait..) even if you don't pay taxes. These things are fixed costs that will exist without one person's input, but the input from many one persons will offset those costs.

Aw shite, that was less coherent than I hoped it would be, but in the mean time I strongly recommend a read of this book: [url= http://timharford.com/logicoflife/buy-the-book/ ]'The Logic Of Life' by Tim Harford[/url] as it contains some thought processes that might help you wade through the difference one person's input can make (pertinent to the above analogies). It's also got lots of other fascinating insights into how economics can explain quite a lot. Incidentally, I borrowed the book from a friend: does that make me (more of) a pirate? Yar? Does this recommendation offset some of my ship-boarding ways?

Further to the Lovefilm discussion above, do libraries pay more for their copies of books? Also, if I buy a book from a charity shop, the author obviously gets no royalties, yet I have a copy: piracy...?

What a ****ing minefield. I only know one thing for certain: I've spent more time downloading stuff than I've spent actually watching it and I reckon lots of it I'll never get around to watching, e.g. my attempt to rekindle my X-files interest lapsed after less than half a series...

More fool me! 🙄

When you buy a dvd you actually buy a license to view it privately, the license doesn't permit you to lend, copy or resell.

So what if I pick up a newspaper what someone else what has paid for it has discarded, and read it?

What if, right, I shoplifted a DVD, took it home, watched it, then took it back to the shop and replaced it, then someone else bought it?

Have I 'illegally downloaded the information to my brain'??? 😯

Technically on both counts Fred, you've commited theft.

Not a prayer you'd get prosecuted for the paper, but good luck with the DVD - try it sometime.

Oh well I'm going to jail.

(Sigh)

When you buy a dvd you actually buy a license to view it privately, the license doesn't permit you to lend, copy or resell.
So what if I pick up a newspaper what someone else what has paid for it has discarded, and read it?

A newspaper isn't a DVD

I'm not rising to your bait.

Fred, reading the newspaper that you haven't paid for may be illegal, or at least a copyright breach, by the strict letter of the law. But the copyright owner can ammend the copyright licence. But as you can see by reading the [url= http://www.ft.com/servicestools/help/copyright ]Financial Times[/url] copyright regs there are things you are allowed to or not to do by the copyright owner. I would imagine that reading of the newspaper in itself isn't a breach (which contradicts what I said at the beginning), but any reproduction of it's content would be a breach. But i suspect you know the answer to your question.
There will always be people who think they can justify their law breaking, me included, and those who don't fully understand the concepts of intellectual property, me included. This is why my lawyers receive huge wads of cash to protect my work.
In Spain we pay a tax on pretty any medium which is used (Is it 'which' or 'that' when referring to object in a non-defining relative clause? I can never remember...) for storage or reproduction of this type of work. So if I'm paying the tax (fine) in advance, why not commit the crime I'm being accused of?

What you on about cougar? When did lovefilm become free?

so if i rent a film for 1.99 then copy it to my hdd, is that theft? and then lend it to friends to watch?

even though i paid for it??

So what if I pick up a newspaper what someone else what has paid for it has discarded, and read it
Technically on both counts Fred, you've commited theft

You sure I though that if they have given up ownership of it by discarding it you cant steal it as they no longer own it.

It's probably not a point worth discussing too much, as it was a bit of a non-comment on my part, but lets imagine it isn't a newspaper, but something of value - you don't know it's been discarded, it may just have been left by mistake. Taking it, then becomes theft in the eyes of the law.

Petty, I know, but just making a point/analagy.

So what does everybody use to download music now that Limewire's gone?

youtube and a website that allows you to download as a mp3 😉 which isnt stealing as its on the site already 😉

I fully admit I download bucket loads of music. After a month or so of listening, 95% of it will end up deleted. Gone. Forever.

It's how I find out about new artists, bands, and expand my musical tastes....

The remaining 5% may get my custom from gigs, merchandise and physical CD purchases.

I buy enough new music to not feel guilty about the occasional thievery.

Only illegally download stuff that I wouldn't actually buy, or that I have already bought on vinyl and want the MP3s.

Theft and anyone trying to justify it is just making excuses for being thieving toe-rags. For music it's not like you can't listen to a sample and buy individual songs (rather than being forced into buying whole albums which was crap in CD days).

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

oh now I get it 😆
Im copying that and theres nothing you can do about it 😀

Ah, the classic 'guilty party, accussing the innoccent of being on a high horse' line.

Love it - accept what you are doing is wrong. No-one (well not me), is neccessarilly asking you to feel guilty about it though.

[i]Im copying that and theres nothing you can do about it [/i]

Bloody thief!

I dont agree with the idea of intellectual property, just because you were the first to do something doesn't mean you have sole rights to it.
And I dont agree with paying someone for a copy of their work, it wouldn't wash for me so why should they get away with it. If you want to be payed for playing music then turn up and do it.
On that basis I have no scruples about downloading music.

Where do we stand on downloading TV programmes via torrent?

A couple of scenarios that spring to mind are TV shows that are aired in the US and won't be aired in the UK for months, or years. I'd watch them when they are on over here, I may even record them, but I'd like to watch them now and not in a couple of years time.

What about if I am overseas for a period of time and I would like to watch UK TV progs but I'm not allowed to as I can't watch BBC iPlayer etc from overseas.

Thoughts?

Bloody thief!

Pirate [i]actually[/i] 😀

And I dont agree with paying someone for a copy of their work, it wouldn't wash for me so why should they get away with it. If you want to be payed for playing music then turn up and do it.

What flippin nonsense.

sweepy -you're talking crap with that one pal.

As for TV, that's a grey one for me - I pay my TV licence and I give Sky £70 a month, but does that give me the right to watch something I haven't paid for?

Not really, but I'd have less of a problem with that than not paying for music (still don't do it though).

Ah, the classic 'guilty party, accussing the innoccent of being on a high horse' line.

Mostly, I just thought it was funny.

TV shows that are aired in the US and won't be aired in the UK for months

There's an argument here that if you did this, you potentially wouldn't subscribe to the channels that carried these shows over here because you've already seen them. So there's a potential loss of revenue there. Personally, I still subscribe to everything I'm interested in so it's a moot point for me.

The upside of all this is that channels / distributors do seem to be a bit keener to get stuff released over here in a more timely manner, which is no bad thing.

I've less of an issue morally with downloading TV episodes, generally. Partly, as I've said, because I'm still paying for the channels that carry them. Plus I've hemorraged money on TV box sets over the years (don't get me started on X-Files VHS box sets at 80 quid rrp per season) so it's not like I'm sitting here freeloading.

What's the difference between having a job singing a song, and any other job? Im not being arsey, I genuinely dont understand why they keep getting paid for doing something once while the rest of us have to go in and actually do it every day.
The Grateful dead made a damn good living playing around 300 gigs a year, and set aside a special area for people to record their gigs.